|
Paul MaudDib posted:Why do you think it's unconstitutional to pass laws regarding victimless crimes? That's an ethical position, not one that is legally encoded in the Constitution. I never said they shouldn't, I just said they can be detained and that labor options could be part of their punishment, not that their compensation and conditions for that labor could be any different than any laws on the books for any other citizen working in the same state. VitalSigns posted:Tax evasion. If you evade taxes programs that I have access to have reduced funding and I am provided a lower quality of service even though my tax burden has not changed, I would be a victim of your actions. Especially if I relied on those programs to survive, which I do since I don't like planes crashing into my head or plunging to my death after driving on an unmaintained bridge while it collapsed. VitalSigns posted:Open-and-shut man. The Constitution says state law is the arbiter on who gets held to service or labor, and if a state says that you're a slave, then you're a slave as far as the Constitution is concerned. Hell, it even puts the burden on other states to respect those laws and return slaves to their owners. This was a nice aristocratic dodge but it doesent make it legal to take someone as unvoluntary labor in the first place as it would violate their core inalienable rights. Sure, slaves cant run away under constitutional restrictions, you also cant alienate the rights of a man and make him a slave in the first place so Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Apr 4, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:That's just the conservative view. Rush is no unique snowflake. So very true. Even Obama-fellating, supposedly-sane gay conservative Andrew Sullivan is shocked, shocked I tell you, that somewhere a One Percenter bigot had a rough time over despicable beliefs that are losing ground fast. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/ Sullivan is a perfect view inside the mind of Village arrivist conservatism. He'll cultivate modern and even progressive views to broaden his appeal and stay relevant (his stance on pot, his come-about on Iraq and criticism of Israel), especially if it's a self-serving cause (pot again, his circumcision crusade, but oddly not agitating for gay rights, as he's always been defensive rather than militant here). A bit like Megyn Kelly is all for female empowerment and maternity leave, as those things directly benefit her. But all of that will quickly be cast aside the moment privilege is imperiled and the people who -matter- are made uncomfortable. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be so well-meaning and forgiving to people who would be glad to see him on fire and say so as openly as they can without being kept from polite society (Andrew Breitbart, Charles Murray, the AIPAC gang, a whole stable of religious nuts) and so pettily poisonous to those he supposedly shares causes with (LGBT movements, Michael Moore, any progressive leadership that is not entirely toothless, etc.) It was comical, and enlightening, when he overstepped his bounds early in the last election. When Paul Ryan appeared on the scene, he was swooning all over the place over this bold new catholic visionary who had the brilliant plan to erase the DEBT. When his own readers called him on what an empty bag of void Ryan was to the point that his position became unsustainable, he harumphed and dropped the subject, but kept grumbling about how a similar plan was badly needed by 'someone' to deal with he DEBT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:If you evade taxes programs that I have access to have reduced funding and I am provided a lower quality of service even though my tax burden has not changed, I would be a victim of your actions. Especially if I relied on those programs to survive, which I do since I don't like planes crashing into my head or plunging to my death after driving on an unmaintained bridge while it collapsed. Well, if we're just going to mold definitions past any measure of reason to support our positions, then I'm victimized when my slave runs away and my cotton plants wither on the vine. The Constitution isn't based on the Libertarian Harm Principle, and I don't know why you think it is since that principle destroys any possibility of effective government. Spaceman Future! posted:This was a nice aristocratic dodge but it doesent make it legal to take someone as unvoluntary labor in the first place as it would violate their core inalienable rights. Sure, slaves cant run away under constitutional restrictions, you also cant alienate the rights of a man and make him a slave in the first place so Really? US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9 posted:The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. The Constitution was totally cool with taking people as involuntary labor in the first place as long as you get it done in the next 25 years, and the property rights of owners in their existing slaves and the children of those slaves were assured in perpetuity with an obligation placed on other states to return runaways. I don't know why you're so invested in believing slavery was illegal under the Constitution, but nobody noticed for a hundred years or so. What do you think the Thirteenth Amendment does, anyway? Nothing? Acknowledging the flaws in the Constitution doesn't discredit all of democracy, and there's no reason to pretend a flawed document is sanctified and No True US Constitution would have allowed the things we now know are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:So very true. Even Obama-fellating, supposedly-sane gay conservative Andrew Sullivan is shocked, shocked I tell you, that somewhere a One Percenter bigot had a rough time over despicable beliefs that are losing ground fast. He spent a lot of time crusading against gay promiscuity and bathhouse culture - at least he did until his gay hookup internet profile came surfaced and we all had a good laugh at it, and he went into a snit about privacy and decency and leaving someone's private sex life alone. Which would have been a little more credible if he hadn't spent his every waking moment in the 1990s repeating every single Drudge/tabloid slur about Bill and Hillary Clinton from his perch as editor of The New Republic. Finally, the real measure of the man is found is his immediate post-9/11 writing, where he went full neocon and wrote a famous column about how the real threat to America was how decadent coastal leftist elites will unite with Al-Qaeda to launch a "fifth column" terror offensive. gently caress him. I hope he dies soon, and in agonizing pain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? It still violates the first Amendment which is an inalienable right by any measure that the constitution provides. Unless you believe that slaves were allowed free speech and did not receive punishment, often corporal, for expressing that speech? And how exactly you think that rules and regulations for the legislative branch supersede the bill of rights, or how they are pertinent enough to override it, is beyond me. I suppose if you took an incredibly liberal view on who is considered a member of the legislative branch it may have been considered legal for.. 2 years? Even then it is only stated that congress can not bar it, not that it is ever explicitly legal to begin with which pretty much gets wrapped up 2 years later once the bill of rights shows up. VitalSigns posted:Well, if we're just going to mold definitions past any measure of reason to support our positions, then I'm victimized when my slave runs away and my cotton plants wither on the vine. The Constitution isn't based on the Libertarian Harm Principle, and I don't know why you think it is since that principle destroys any possibility of effective government. Yeah no, you cant be deprived of labor you never had a right to as your ownership of that labor was an alienation of their rights. Try again maybe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:So very true. Even Obama-fellating, supposedly-sane gay conservative Andrew Sullivan is shocked, shocked I tell you, that somewhere a One Percenter bigot had a rough time over despicable beliefs that are losing ground fast. I think it's worth pointing out that Eich's saw at least one board member resigning purely on the grounds of Eich's appointment, and was also just a generally controversial decision from within the company itself. So the narrative that the company was happily going about its business until the Gay Gestapo or whatever stormed their poor defenseless company and forced him to resign is more bullshit than the usual defense of bigots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:It still violates the first Amendment which is an inalienable right by any measure that the constitution provides. Unless you believe that slaves were allowed free speech and did not receive punishment, often corporal, for expressing that speech? This doesn't fall afoul of the Constitution because the First Amendment only binds Congress, not slaveholders. Until the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the States, let alone to private slaveowners. Spaceman Future! posted:Yeah no, you cant be deprived of labor you never had a right to as your ownership of that labor was an alienation of their rights. Try again maybe? Yes yes, and a Libertarian would claim that prison for tax evasion is wrongful incarceration because you never had a right to his money and confiscating it through taxes is an alienation of his rights. You're using an idiosyncratic definition of victimhood to support some bizarre belief that The Constitution Cannot Fail, It Can Only Be Failed and I'm not sure why that is or what you're really arguing anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
The important part of the whole 'marijuana is still illegal' derail is that the instant the sitting president, whether Obama tomorrow or some republican in 2017, decides it would be politically valuable to crack down on drugs they can arrest everyone running a dispensary (and everyone in the state government of their choice associated with regulating them, under RICO, if they like) quickly and easily because the state programs are criminal conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This doesn't fall afoul of the Constitution because the First Amendment only binds Congress, not slaveholders. Until the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the States, let alone to private slaveowners. Well that would be a bulltshit argument, they have been using the programs they are paying for both directly and indirectly since before thy could form words. An argument so dishonest and so blatantly in opposition to services rendered and rights available is not something to be taken serious as it fails to provide any logical grounds. Even if they claimed not to use the programs now they benefit from they do rely on people who do use those programs, receive services from them or rely on them in other ways, there is no way to live "off the grid" when it comes to social programs unless you are born live and die self sufficiently alone on an island with no interaction with anyone from any nation. And, I don't defend the constitution as a whole, just the elements that void the awful crap. Such as Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 that dictates that Congress be in power of foreign trade, slaves were a foreign entity imported, and congress is not allowed to violate the bill of rights, meaning congress could not legally allow the taking of slaves into the country from foreign entities without violation of the First Amendment. But they did it anyway, whoops haha our bad. UberJew posted:The important part of the whole 'marijuana is still illegal' derail is that the instant the sitting president, whether Obama tomorrow or some republican in 2017, decides it would be politically valuable to crack down on drugs they can arrest everyone running a dispensary (and everyone in the state government of their choice associated with regulating them, under RICO, if they like) quickly and easily because the state programs are criminal conspiracy. It is not politically viable, especially in the states where it has passed or is being considered. It would be political suicide party wide. The only political points to be gained would be by descheduling, going the other way will only hurt the initiator. edit: I should probably stop at this point, I'm reading back through all these rambles and while I feel like I have argued honestly I dont think it is very clear. I started my day today by collapsing from exhaustion on a subway and being sent home to try not to ...die or whatever happens after that so coherency is probably not my strong point this evening. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Name one Federal law that violation will lead to incarceration where there are no victims? I think you should take it to the USA Politics thread since it's especially into derails, but off the top of my head: Possession of an ounce or so of coke/weed/heroin/insert name of drug. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:It is not politically viable, especially in the states where it has passed or is being considered. It would be political suicide party wide. The only political points to be gained would be by descheduling, going the other way will only hurt the initiator. It is politically viable as all hell for Republicans, especially since they have largely written off Colorado and Washington already - and both states also have plenty of awful conservative areas where established Republicans are going to get re-elected for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It is politically viable as all hell for Republicans, especially since they have largely written off Colorado and Washington already - and both states also have plenty of awful conservative areas where established Republicans are going to get re-elected for a while. Yeah if Colorado goes D in 2016 but the R candidate wins I really would not be surprised by a DEA crackdown. I very much doubt it would go so far as RICO prosecution of government employees (or CCE prosecution of Governor Hickenlooper which would carry a mandatory life sentence, since tax receipts will far exceed the $10 million per year minimum) but it's still possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I laughed at the "leftist fascists" in the URL. Poor homophobes, can't donate money to anti-gay organizations without getting publicly shamed for it Meanwhile, economic pressure to take or keep a job isn't coercion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
cracking down on weed is a terrible idea politically. Doesn't mean the GOP wouldn't do it, but from a strictly numbers and figures standpoint they really shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Colorado has already pulled in like 2 million in taxes from marijuana. No way anyone in the state legislature is letting the feds mess that up without protest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
There's plenty of ways to gently caress with pot distribution without directly targeting users. California has seen a lot of it over the years. Feds will go after growers and the state uses property laws to drive away medical MJ storefronts making it much less convenient without the backlash they'd get from arresting the average user.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Please link to a single federal closure of a recreational dispensary in the state of Colorado since they opened for retail sale. Or a single instance of federal policies being applied in Colorado in the case of the recreational use of marijuana. They haven't wound up yet. There are a lot of medical marijuana prosecutions in California. http://www.pe.com/local-news/san-be...stics-owner.ece http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/14pot.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:
Murray came out for gay rights and gay marriage within the last year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It is politically viable as all hell for Republicans, especially since they have largely written off Colorado and Washington already - and both states also have plenty of awful conservative areas where established Republicans are going to get re-elected for a while. I don't know if you're under the impression that legal MMJ was a liberal measure in Colorado or what but outside the religious fortress in Colorado Springs it has a crazy groundswell of conservative support, Colorado as an electoral battleground may be written off but this is only a good idea for the GOP if they would like to write off 70% of the seats statewide. I'm not sure what upside the party could possibly be trying to cater to unless they are super excited to alienate libertarian support nationwide and accelerate their own loss of power. "GOP attacks states rights, liberty" is not exactly a good talking point. What makes this "viable as all hell"? What does the GOP gain from it? nm posted:They haven't wound up yet. There are a lot of medical marijuana prosecutions in California. not only is California an easier target since it is such a liberal stronghold they also haven't adopted the stonewall icebox approach Colorado has. The DEA gets zero local cooperation, the State courthouses will not take the cases, state facilities will not cooperate in any facet of any investigation for recreational use or legal sale, etc etc. It makes enforcement cost prohibitive and the DEA get none of the local political support or leniency they enjoy in other locations. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:I don't know if you're under the impression that legal MMJ was a liberal measure in Colorado or what but outside the religious fortress in Colorado Springs it has a crazy groundswell of conservative support, Colorado as an electoral battleground may be written off but this is only a good idea for the GOP if they would like to write off 70% of the seats statewide. I'm not sure what upside the party could possibly be trying to cater to unless they are super excited to alienate libertarian support nationwide and accelerate their own loss of power. "GOP attacks states rights, liberty" is not exactly a good talking point. The GOP gains from it because assloads of their support base either hates weed outright or at most would care far less about punishing weedusers then they care about those drat immigrants. Especially loving libertarians who have proven time and again that they care more about hoarding guns or discriminating against minorities than about any sort of rights. You're seriously on something if you think it would hurt the GOP to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The GOP gains from it because assloads of their support base either hates weed outright or at most would care far less about punishing weedusers then they care about those drat immigrants. Especially loving libertarians who have proven time and again that they care more about hoarding guns or discriminating against minorities than about any sort of rights. These aren't hippie stoners guy, this bill had a ton of support from gun owning horse riding mountain living pot smoking manly men, the GOP can try to rebrand the law as Boulder hippies all they want but not only are the open carry local conservatives in favor they are very publicly in favor. When Clint Eastwood's bigger bearded twin shows up on TV with his holster under one arm and his pipe under the other screaming about RINOs attacking his personal liberty the GOP response is what exactly? These are gun toting rich white guys you're attacking here along with the Democrat crowd, I don't think you're fully comprehending the demographics behind this law. And to balance this out, *where* is the GOP picking up support on this supposed political powerhouse move? Who hates pot that isnt already voting GOP and near death? How does this bolster their turnout in any way? Where would new votes be coming from? All I see is subtraction. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:When Clint Eastwood's bigger bearded twin shows up on TV with his holster under one arm and his pipe under the other screaming about RINOs attacking his personal liberty the GOP response is what exactly? Have them arrested as prohibited possessors of a firearm under federal law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:These aren't hippie stoners guy, this bill had a ton of support from gun owning horse riding mountain living pot smoking manly men, the GOP can try to rebrand the law as Boulder hippies all they want but not only are the open carry local conservatives in favor they are very publicly in favor. When Clint Eastwood's bigger bearded twin shows up on TV with his holster under one arm and his pipe under the other screaming about RINOs attacking his personal liberty the GOP response is what exactly? These are gun toting rich white guys you're attacking here along with the Democrat crowd, I don't think you're fully comprehending the demographics behind this law. And there were tons more conservatives in Colorado who voted against the bill, genius. And there's an entire country outside Washington and Colorado. Again, what are you on that you think all republicans are down with weed now? The GOP also enjoys doing things like putting out vicious anti gay laws to absolutely no purpose. It's about showing off their power. How are you so ignorant of this behavior?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:And there were tons more conservatives in Colorado who voted against the bill, genius. None that matter. Heres a visual excersize.  You see all those red spots? Those are the areas that have gently caress all for political contributions. Greenie up the middle there? Greenie runs state politics, funds state politics, and decides who gets money for state races. Greenie also loved the hell out of Ammendment 64. The GOP can attack gays all day because they aren't eating their own, and more importantly they aren't pissing off the massive pockets of that green wang looking pocket of shale oil on the top left or the resettled multibillionares in dead center of ol' greenie. You're equating attacking deep pockets of political money with a social boogeyman and then you ask me what I'm smoking. SedanChair posted:Have them arrested as prohibited possessors of a firearm under federal law? Yeah, then the GOP is taking away guns while attacking states rights, plays well with the base right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:None that matter. Heres a visual excersize. None of that proves anything. The Republican party for that matter already considers Colorado "lost" for federal elections. Why do you think the Republicans at large could or should give a poo poo about Colorado's opinion? Look, there's people who support gays yet are deluded enough to vote Republican too after all! Even Colorado had over a million people vote against legal weed. That's 200,000 more people then voted for the Republican senate candidate in 2010! Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
I think it's hard to imagine that the GOP in its current state would hesitate to crack down on marijuana. This whole scenario is assuming they win in '16, so presumably they would not have a shortage of political capital or support. It may be popular with libertarians but for now at least the main conservative line is absolutely against it. Certainly the old white southern contingent of the base is not what I would call supportive of medical marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:None of that proves anything. The Republican party for that matter already considers Colorado "lost" for federal elections. Why do you think the Republicans at large could or should give a poo poo about Colorado's opinion? Because, again, cutting down the rights of rich white republicans is political Jonesboro for the GOP. Granted there isn't a historical political precedent for a Republican federal official overriding a popular state law that had become a powerhouse industry as MMJ is quickly becoming in Colorado (Except that one *little* time, loving northerners). But you know, you're convinced that the GOP, the party of rich white folks, could pull a masterstroke in the name of state rights and liberty by attacking rich white Republicans' states rights, and their own funding. That's like claiming that repeatedly punching yourself in the crotch is a victory for your long term sterility. I'm not sure how you consolidate that with reality but I cant put it any plainer, if you're unmoved then you're unrecoverable anyway. icantfindaname posted:I think it's hard to imagine that the GOP in its current state would hesitate to crack down on marijuana. This whole scenario is assuming they win in '16, so presumably they would not have a shortage of political capital or support. It may be popular with libertarians but for now at least the main conservative line is absolutely against it. Certainly the old white southern contingent of the base is not what I would call supportive of medical marijuana. If the old white contingent was powerful enough to be courting then President Romney would be doing the cracking down. What votes does the GOP gain with this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Because, again, cutting down the rights of rich white republicans is political Jonesboro for the GOP. Granted there isn't a historical political precedent for a Republican federal official overriding a popular state law that had become a powerhouse industry as MMJ is quickly becoming in Colorado (Except that one *little* time, loving northerners). There is no legal weed in any Republican stronghold state. And white people already get away with weed way easier than minorities. Again: Republicans don't give a poo poo about Colorado. Are you from Colorado or something? Are you just trying to defend your state's honor? They haven't won any federal elections there since 2004, they've been pushed out of state level politics slowly but surely aside from some holdout areas. Hurting legal weed would barely even damage the democrats federally, it can't hurt the Republicans at all. Spaceman Future! posted:
They don't lose any that matter bub, that's the point. And it helps keep up the spirits of people who do vote Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:If the old white contingent was powerful enough to be courting then President Romney would be doing the cracking down. What votes does the GOP gain with this? What votes does the GOP gain with any of their policies? If they had enough political power to take the executive they would have the political power to crack down on marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
hurting legal weed doesn't help the GOP at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Miltank posted:hurting legal weed doesn't help the GOP at all. Hurting legal weed doesn't hurt the GOP at all, as it only exists in two states where Republicans have been solidly marginalized for extended time periods, states which the GOP already demonizes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
yeah it doesn't hurt them necessarily but I really don't think they will win any political points for cracking down on pot. Nobody under the age of 40 even gives a poo poo about weed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Hurting legal weed doesn't hurt the GOP at all, as it only exists in two states where Republicans have been solidly marginalized for extended time periods, states which the GOP already demonizes. The GOP demonizes any state it loses. That's not really a meaningful category.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Miltank posted:yeah it doesn't hurt them necessarily but I really don't think they will win any political points for cracking down on pot. Nobody under the age of 40 even gives a poo poo about weed. They win political points with the kind of people who already vote Republican, and it helps encourage those people to keep voting. It's exactly like when they propose dumbass anti gay laws that they can't even pass. The only people it pushes away are people who were already pushed away - all the other people care more about supporting one of the Republicans' many other ridiculous regressive policies to leave for the Democrats over the one thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:They win political points with the kind of people who already vote Republican, and it helps encourage those people to keep voting. It's exactly like when they propose dumbass anti gay laws that they can't even pass. The only people it pushes away are people who were already pushed away - all the other people care more about supporting one of the Republicans' many other ridiculous regressive policies to leave for the Democrats over the one thing. All I can say is that I hope your wrong. There are way too many young republican's who hate gay people but love weed. To be honest, I am more concerned that the GOP will fully embrace weed in 2016. They could support laws that make possession greater than an ounce illegal in order to keep the prisons full, but legalize/decriminalize personal amounts and absorb an absurd amount of the young voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Miltank posted:All I can say is that I hope your wrong. There are way too many young republican's who hate gay people but love weed. They also probably love guns more than they love weed, and so will not be turned away. (Seriously single issue gun voters are a hell of a drug) Those young voters would not be swayed by weed, considering all the other things the republicans already do. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Weed has a huge untapped reverse NIMBY power imo. Young people smoke mad weed, and the idea of legal weed coupled with general disillusionment with politics could lead to huge gains for the GOP among young people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Weed has a huge untapped reverse NIMBY power imo. Young people smoke mad weed, and the idea of legal weed coupled with general disillusionment with politics could lead to huge gains for the GOP among young people. Young people don't vote. Young people especially don't vote for Republicans regardless. poo poo man, if the Republicans really did open up with support for weed across the board, the Democrats would do it too! Except the Democrats would also have something else at all young people might want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
That is all true. I guess I just don't trust the Dems not to gently caress everything up is all 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:35 |
|
"Install Windows" posted:Except the Democrats would also have something else at all young people might want. Pogs?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 07:18
|
|
